Patriots release Aaron Hernandez...

You'll have to define "solution." No law passed will reduce the drunk driving rate to zero, just as no gun law passed will use the gun violence rate to zero. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the rate. The trick is striking a balance between personal liberty and public safety. But just because we might disagree on where that line should be drawn in relation to guns doesn't mean we should ignore the available data on the subject.

The US has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. I find that unacceptable, as I think most people do. The problem is that we have become so twisted by tribalism and ideology that we can't even get our elected representatives to pass overwhelmingly popular gun-control legislation, like expanding background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all internet sales.

 

Our DAs don't prosecute people for lying on our current background check system, and most weapons used in crimes are stolen or belong to family members. Passing additional legislation to build a 4000 mile long fence on the Canadian border won't help illegal immigration from Mexico...

The US has a homocide rate 60 times higher than Australia, for example, with a population 15 times higher. Switzerland, with 35% of Australia's population, has 32% of it's homicide rate. Australia implemented what is tantamount to a complete ban on weapons in 1996. Switzerland issues all adult men a fully automatic assault rifle upon completion of mandatory basic military training that they then take home with them and maintain in their homes.

American gun violence is not a gun problem, and Hernandez's victim would probably still be dead today whether Hernandez had been armed or not. Somewhere, at some point, someone taught Hernandez to be a degenerate. Maybe we should stop constantly glorifying violence and negative role models in our society if we want to reduce the rate at which we see easily influenced individuals (i.e., the young and/or uneducated) personifying these qualities.

 

I did nothing of the sort. I pointed to an incident which illustrates perfectly the problem with gun control legislation. Gun control legislation, in any form, only serves to prevent people of moderate means from being able to adequately defend themselves. Criminals can still acquire illegal weapons given sufficient resources/effort, and, worst of all, gun control creates a power disparity between the haves and the have nots. Aaron Hernandez was armed in Massachussets because he had the means to be able to afford to be armed. His victim did not. Would the deceased have drawn a weapon on his girlfriend's brother-in-law had he had that option available to him? I don't know, but he certainly didn't have that option in the PDRM.

 

My brother in Florida recently bough a Glock ( he goes to a shooting range). All he had to do was show his drivers license. He had to jump through more hoops just to renew his drivers license.

 

I don't support any sort of outright bans, for the same reason you mentioned, they don't work. But limits and regulations do work

 

Exactly. And since guns aren't required to be registered, he could turn around and sell it to any felon he wants, and there are no repercussions. We don't even allow cars to be sold that easily

 

Yes, that was the study .. It was 4a and I was responding from my phone ..

I would argue that the Centers for American Progress study is just as flawed. When you use statistics that include suicide, self defense shootings, and criminal on criminal acts, this study is disingenuous as best. Or, I suppose we could start up a nationwide bus tour and announce names like the Boston Marathon bomber as victim of "gun violence".

Receiving funding from Soros might not be flawed methodology but it certainly sets a precedent on where the study was going to be focused.

So the question really is where do "common sense" gun laws stop .. We have been hearing this for years in California and the creep continues. The 'problem' is that there is no "common sense" from our elected officials and we are guilty for putting them in office. They want to tax each individual bullet. They already ban handguns under the guise that they are not safe although the same handgun is safe because it is a different color. They want to ban rifles that are rarely used in crime. They want to ban ammunition bought over the internet. They want to band lead ammunition under the guise of environmental protection … So where does it all end!?

 

That could not have happened.. If he bought a gun from a gun shop, then he had to fill out a DROS which is a background check. And there is a 3 day waiting period.

 

Why don't we just enforce what is already on the books? Why do we need to react every time something happens?

 

You have an example of one of these so called, unenforced laws that should be enforced?

 

Heh .. how about lack of prosecuting for lying on the DROS.. so many, so little time.

 

When we had the Congressional hearings on gun violence they asked some DAs how many of the 90000 denied bgc were prosecuted. The answer was 0.

 

There you go..

 

And how do you catch people for lying BEFORE they are given a gun when the background checks are so weak?

 

I'm not sure they are weak .. I believe a good majority didn't get the firearm as the background check failed..

 

You jump to a ridiculous number of conclusions. How do you know the victim did not own a gun or could not afford a gun? How do you know that gun regulations in Massachusetts had anything to do with whether or not the victim owned a gun? You know nothing of the circumstances of the crime, but that does not stop you from making a bunch of baseless assertions. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

What creep? The number of guns per capita in the US is double that of any other nation in the world. The government is not over-regulating firearms. We have the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world.

 

Gun control hurts the poor now? Talk about pulling arguments out of your ***. If you want to make outrageous claims, at least pretend to have some evidence to back it up.

 

It was said in the Presidential debate that Obama want 'common sense' gun control and elimination of 'cheap' guns .. Saturday Night Specials .. so, what defines cheap?

 

The poor are disproportionately affected by gun violence, and they are more likely to perpetrate gun violence. The poor do not have a problem getting guns. Getting rid of cheap guns is a way to stop the proliferation of firearms in to poor communities that are being terrorized by gun violence.

 

Wow!!.. that's an interesting view.. so the poor don't have a right to defend themselves!?

 

Seriously, cite a source or STFU.

According to an ATF expert on gun violence, stolen guns account for 10-15% of guns used in crimes. The biggest source are "straw man" purchases where two people go into a gun shop and one buys the gun for the other in an openly suggestive manner. This is illegal but not often reported by gun shop owners. Clearly, this is a place where enforcement needs to be better, but the punishment for gun shop owners who allow these sales to happen needs to be more than a slap on the wrist. The next biggest source are corrupt at-home and wholesale gun owners.

 

The poor also have a right not to live in communities that are being torn apart by gun violence. If you want to make the argument that more guns will lead to less gun violence, you'll have to provide a source. I have not found a single study that has reached that conclusion.

 

The assertion that Ikeman made was that gun control hurts the poor. If you think getting rid of cheap guns has a net negative effect on the poor, what is your basis for that assertion?

 

No background check that can be done in 5 mins, like they can be done at shops here in CO, can in any way be extensive enough. We make getting a drivers license harder and more expensive that getting a gun, which is absolutely asinine.

By the way, I am a gun owner and was completely flabbergasted when I got to CO to find out that there is no registration system here. That is just crazy. I could legally go out and sell my guns to anyone, since it would be a private party sale which doesn't require a background check, and the government would never know. That is just crazy

 

It's not about the study you mentioned being flawed. The study you cited does not address the question that you said it did. You either have not read it, deliberately misrepresented the findings or took the word of some talk show bloviator or blogger who deliberately misrepresented the findings.

Among the 10 rankings used in the study I cited, two were related to total gun deaths, which would include a small number of self-defense shootings. Suicides by gun rates were also included, but why not? We are talking about gun violence. According to analysis of available data from the Harvard School of Public health, "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide."

Among the other 10 rankings used in the study were gun homicides, aggravated assaults involving guns, firearm deaths among children, law enforcement agents feloniously killed with firearms, crime gun export rates and percentage of crime guns with a short time to crime.

It think the biggest issue you have with the study is that it does not support your opinion. If it reinforced your preconceived notions, I'm guessing you would find the methodology flawless.

 

Background checks are done by the federal government .. I will never accept registration.. it already is being abused with concealed carry. And with the way the IRS has been mishandling data, I don't trust anything coming put of this administration..

 

So it all comes down to the tin foil hat, I get it

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus